Who was greater: Ken Norton or Vitali Klitschko

Dumb post.

 

Anyone chasing a big money fight try’s not to get beat and mess it up.
In the end he fought Young Holmes Shavers Cobb Quarry and Cooney.

 

It's become pretty obvious around here that YDKSAB and you're pretty rude and stupid as well. If you didn't have a 2010 timestamp I'd put you at 13 years old.

 

And, you think this is a compliment?

Maybe your surfacing a subconscious allegory for Vitali's loss to Lewis.

 

Vitali fought in the very worst era of heavyweight boxing, and fought mostly the second stringers.

 

Ya. It means he has a solid chin and the mentality of a champion.

 

Definitely wasn't the worst. 50's were worse and there are other eras as well.

 

I disagree. Sorry. There were two good heavies in the Klitschko era--the brothers. And they couldn't fight each other, so...

 

Translates as: "Shows no ring IQ or defense."

 

You really need to get laid if you still get entertained by rock'em sock'em robots.

 

Just a word of advice friend if you write a post as long as this no one is going to read it. They may read a couple of lines but guarantee that’s it. If you want to be read you need to be succinct and not try to explain everything under the sun.

 

But that is true though Norton's resume is heavily based on the win over Ali.

Not that i'm saying that's necessarily a bad thing because alot of fighters have 1 stand out win that makes their legacy.

And Norton's win over Ali is far better than any of Vitali's single wins.

But if you're using the argument that quality rates above quantity which it can do in many cases.

But for me in this case Norton doesn't have enough quality overall to overcome the sheer numbers of Vitali's title wins that's how i see it.

Again i'm not discrediting Norton's win over Young i had Norton winning by 1 point myself and Young was on a good run of form so it was a good win. But it was a highly controversial decision and alot of people had Young edging the fight, i know in the scorecard thread we have here the notable scorers in that thread all had Young edging it.

So whilst it is a good win it was also a very highly debatable decision aswell.

You won't get any argument from me on this i'm not one of those people that thinks Vitali has a stand out resume because he simply doesn't.

But i do think the consistency, the amount of title wins, the dominance in regards barely losing a round in his career. Plus longevity coming back at 40 years old and winning a belt does count for something in regards to his legacy.

But this is what i was asking you TBH.

Are you rating Norton's greatness on his notable losses aswell ? because i can understand your argument that the manner in which Norton challenged Ali, Holmes, proved it wasn't just a fluke he was competing well against upper echelon boxers so that adds to his legacy.

But then on the flipside Norton getting dismantled by every notable upper echelon puncher he fought also hurts his legacy and H2H standing aswell.

So it's whilst i agree it does tell us Norton was very capable against high level boxers which adds to his legacy.

But then as i said the brutal KO losses to the notable hitters also tell us Norton has a glaring weakness against big punchers which hurts his legacy aswell especially the manner in which lost numerous times.

But i don't think you can simply just overlook that MM.

How many Heavyweights in history have won that many title fights whilst barely losing a round ?

I know the opposition wasn't great but the sheer consistency and dominance does deserve some credit.

There's no shame in losing to Big George.

But then there's the other brutal 1st round stoppages against Cooney, Shavers, which do hurt Norton's legacy in regards to him being weak against punchers.

In fairness to Norton you could say he was at the end of his career.

But then on the flipside would you be confident in picking any version of Norton against Shavers ? Cooney ? because i wouldn't.

Norton does also have some other glaring performances in his career aswell.

Like losing to Garcia and getting a very fortunate draw vs LeDoux. In which i thought should've been a TKO win for LeDoux as Norton was basically knocked out on his feet.

But as for Vitali yes losing to his two best opponents does hurt his legacy and i've also said that before aswell.

But he wasn't outpointed or KO'ed he was stopped on cuts and the other was a torn rotator cuff injury.

Not that i'm saying they weren't legit losses i give Byrd more credit for the win than alot of people do. And i've defended Byrd before that i think the fight was more competitive than what was made out.

MM i'm not trying to be argumentative and pig headed and just see my point of view and not yours.

I understand totally what you're saying.

You're saying that just being a belt holder and just looking at the numbers without context doesn't automatically mean you're greater.

And yeah that can be true in alot of cases absolutely and Vitali's opponents weren't exactly a murderer's row.

You also think the significance of Norton being in the strongest Heavyweight era of all time. And the fact he pushed two top 5 Heavyweights to brink in Holmes, Ali, should hold alot more weight in regards to historic significance.

I can totally see your point.

But again it just comes down to for me that i don't think Norton has quite enough of a resume in regards to notable wins.

That in this case the quantity of Vitali's title wins gives him the edge for me.

But maybe i'm just looking at wins/losses and maybe not being fair enough in regards to the era of Norton was in. And the historic significance of his performances against Ali, Holmes, significantly adding to his overall greatness.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree again on this one MM but i can see your point of view totally.

 

So the guy that has a PhD in Sports Science and speaks 4 languages isn't sharp enough? His defense is also pretty good considering he was able to avoid punches as well with his lean-back style. Stop hating.

 

Okay, Mr. Anime.

 

I never said Donald and Hide were prime killers. I said they were solid fighters who Vitali dominated more than anyone else did. Donald was 39-3 going into the Vitali fight. Active, competitive, and tricky. Was he at his peak? No, but he was still a legit heavyweight. Hide was 31-1 with legitimate power and athleticism. Was Tucker old? Sure. But Hide still proved himself a dangerous fighter.

And here's the thing even if you want to call them shot, Vitali did what no one else did. He stopped Donald when nobody else could. He stopped Hide in 2 when Bowe needed 7 rounds and got knocked down doing it. You're so focused on when these guys were ranked that you're ignoring what Vitali actually did to them. Being unranked by The Ring and being a bad fighter are not the same thing. Donald was still active and competitive. Hide was still dangerous. Vitali made them both look easy.

And you admitted you won't watch the fights. So how exactly do you know they weren't good when Vitali beat them? You're looking at ranking and drawing conclusions about fighter quality from a spreadsheet. If you watched the fights you'd see Donald was still slick and hard to hit, Hide was still fast and powerful. Vitali walked through both. That tells you something about Vitali regardless of where The Ring had them ranked.

Sanders and Brewster are not the same and you know it. Sanders broke Wlad down with speed and power from the opening bell. That's not luck that's a skilled fighter executing a game plan perfectly by maximizing his strengths. Brewster survived until Wlad gassed. Those are completely different wins and equating them just because they both beat Wlad is lazy. Sanders was a former WBO champion with legitimate power, speed and boxing ability. Calling him mediocre is like calling Norton mediocre because he only beat Ali once. You'd never do that.

And I'm not pretending Norton only beat Ali. I'm saying his resume beyond Ali is thin. His second best win is Young in a fight many people think he lost. His third best is Quarry who was past his prime. You keep pointing to those two like they're some kind of gotcha but one is controversial and the other is a shot fighter. Meanwhile Vitali stopped Sanders, Peter, and Adamek all of whom were in their prime with no disputed decision needed.

You listed 11 fighters Vitali should have fought. Let's actually go through that. Vitali retired from 2004-2008 because his body kept breaking down. Mercer was done by the early 2000s. Tua was declining well before Vitali came back. Ruiz was shot by that point. So three of your names were either retired, declining, or ancient when Vitali came back.

Then there's the Wlad split. Povetkin, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Chambers, Rahman, and Haye all fought Wlad. The Klitschkos divided the heavyweight divison between them and wouldn't fight each other. You're listing guys who Wlad fought and blaming Vitali for not fighting them. That's like blaming Wlad for not fighting Sanders and Adamek.

And you said you don't deal with behind the scenes stuff. But "why didn't he fight these guys" is a behind the scenes question. You're asking about matchmaking, promotional politics, and division routing all of which are behind the scenes. Either that stuff matters or it doesn't. You can't refuse to consider it when it helps Vitali and demand it when it hurts him.

Wilder fought bad fighters and old men. Vitali fought top contenders and ranked fighters. There's a massive difference between "not elite" and "actually bad." You keep conflating the two.

And calling Vitali "never a champion, just a belt holder" is redefining words. He held the WBC heavyweight title. You can argue about how strong that reign was but calling him not a champion is just moving the goalposts. Norton never won a belt in the ring and then lost it in his first defense to Holmes. So even on the title front Vitali has the edge. He actually won his belt and defended it. Norton was handed one and immediately lost it.

The Ring even crowned Vitali the lineal champion after Sanders. Whether you agree with that or not, it happened. Norton never came close to that kind of recognition.

Young was a close fight many people think he lost. Quarry was past his prime. If that's your standard for "proving you're there" then the bar is on the floor. Vitali was beating the actual lineal heavyweight champion on all three scorecards. That's not "showing you're in the vicinity" that's proving you belong at the very top. You keep saying he "blew both opportunities." He was winning both fights before his body failed him. Norton got knocked out cold by Foreman in 2 rounds and got out boxed by an injured Holmes. Those aren't comparable types of losses.

"Norton still has a win over his best opponent" yes, one win in three fights with two losses. You're building an entire argument on the single best night of Norton's career while ignoring the other four fights against top opponents where he lost. That's not a body of work its one great moment surrounded by failure.

You compared their top 3 wins. I'm saying compare their full records. Norton has one great win, a controversial second, and a shot third. Vitali has three clean stoppages of ranked fighters plus a deeper list beyond that. If the only way Norton wins the comparison is by limiting it to the top 3 and ignoring everything else, that tells you everything about his depth.

Lewis was the active heavyweight champion of the world, stop calling him old like he was some washed up shell. He was the defending champ who said he would keep fighting for several more years before he fought Vitali.

And you want to know how Vitali went from #4 to #1? Because Lewis retired rather than give him a rematch. The champion watched what Vitali did to him and decided he'd rather walk away than do it again. When the champion retires because a challenger nearly beat him, ranking that challenger number one is exactly what makes sense because its literally the division recognizing who the best available fighter was after the champion left.

Kirk Johnson was seen as the next major challenger to Lewis before the Vitali fight. He was supposed to be the next title challenger and was ranked 8th earlier in the year by the Ring. The Johnson fight was a WBC title eliminator against a guy who had been ranked as high as #8 earlier that same year and was seen by most as as a top-5 to top-10 heavyweight contender heading into the fight with Vitali. So yes stopping him after forcing Lewis to retire would make Vitali the best HW in the world at that point since there was no one as proven at that point. Especially after Sanders beat Wlad.

And the Wallin comparison is dumb and doesn't work. Wallin lost to Fury clearly and never pushed Fury the way Vitali pushed Lewis. Plus Breazeale was nowhere near the level Kirk Johnson was in 2003. One near-miss against the champion + a dominant eliminator win is exactly the kind of resume that should move you up fast in a thin, chaotic division.

Earlier you were arguing Norton's depth was "almost equal" to Vitali's. Now it's "only 2 more" and "very negligible." I'll take the concession.

But even if the gap is only 2, Vitali's ranked opponents were legitimately better fighters almost all of whom were actual contenders. Norton's ranked opponents beyond Ali and Young were gatekeepers and journeymen. Having ranked wins means a lot less when half of them are guys whose main accomplishment is showing up in The Ring's top 10 for a few months. The quality gap between their ranked wins matters as much as the quantity and Vitali wins on both counts.